Re: [PATCH v1 5/9] hw/virtio: introduce virtio_device_should_start

[Alex Bennée]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 11:21:26AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> 
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:23:15AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:23:04AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> >> >> The previous fix to virtio_device_started revealed a problem in its
>> >> >> use by both the core and the device code. The core code should be able
>> >> >> to handle the device "starting" while the VM isn't running to handle
>> >> >> the restoration of migration state. To solve this dual use introduce a
>> >> >> new helper for use by the vhost-user backends who all use it to feed a
>> >> >> should_start variable.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> We can also pick up a change vhost_user_blk_set_status while we are at
>> >> >> it which follows the same pattern.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Fixes: 9f6bcfd99f (hw/virtio: move vm_running check to 
>> >> >> virtio_device_started)
>> >> >> Fixes: 27ba7b027f (hw/virtio: add boilerplate for vhost-user-gpio 
>> >> >> device)
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> >> >> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > why is this in this patchset?
>> >> 
>> >> As per my cover letter:
>> >> 
>> >>   Most of these patches have been posted before as single patch RFCs. A
>> >>   couple are already scheduled through other trees so will drop out in
>> >>   due course
>> >> 
>> >> but I keep them in my tree until they are merged so I can continue to
>> >> soak test them (and have a stable base for my other WIP trees).
>> >
>> > That's fine just pls don't double-post them on list, certainly
>> > not as part of a patchset.
>> 
>> Why not? Is this breaking some tooling?
>
> Yes patchset breaks git am if you try to apply part of it.
>
> Reposting creates work for reviewers - why should they have to read the same
> patch twice?  In this case it also made me scratch my head trying to
> figure out what to do about it.
>
> But, if you are careful and maintain an ordered changelog after "---"
> and there it says 
>       changes since rfc:
>               no changes, subject changed 
>
> then this second part is less of a problem

Ahh yes, I should have updated to point out I added the extra Fixes line
as per the review. I guess you added that in your PR? Anyway it's
dropped now your PR has gone in.

-- 
Alex Bennée